POFO Anything Goes Thread. ((Warning do not enter if you can't handle fire))

[Spesh]

To me it's not so much any one party, it's about the candidates. I just can't vote for a guy that signs off on the NDAA, albeit "regrettably" or whichever synonym he used. I had such high hopes for Obama, the word decriminalization came out of his mouth once in regards to pot, & now he laughs it off when he's asked about it like he's implying, "let's talk about something serious". I've been really surprised at certain directions he's taken as the president that I wouldn't have thought he would going in. Whether that be the NDAA, or the Bush Tax Cuts, infringing upon state-law in regards to cannabis. Idk, seems like a different guy going in than he is now. Makes me think he either said certain things to get elected, or he was a young idealistic senator who when elected, realized he was more of a figure-head than an actual difference maker.

Heres my question, which you can choose to answer or not, but do you consider him equally as "salesman" as Romney?

My own personal feeling is he was idealistic and naive, but he did intend to do much of what he promised. I can accept politicians being limited to the political reality we live in. With that reality in mind, i feel that there is a difference between Romney and Obama. Obama did butcher or throw away many of his promises, but did so reluctantly. With Romney, i cant help but see someone who just wants to be President to be President. The willingness to take a completely opposing point of view at any given moment is concerning.

In most everything else i judge by results, so perhaps im being hypocritical in my lenience of Obama and criticism of Romney. As well, i acknowledge those who get thrown in prison without due process wont really care if the government did so with reluctance. But i see a difference in the way the two candidates have handled their positions. If you, or others, dont see a difference is it simply because of the lack of results?

[rob19]

I'd prefer an Obama victory over a Romney one. No question. I won't vote for him, & maybe using my vote on a Gary Johnson is 'throwing it away', but I just can't bring myself to vote for either of the two of them.

With Romney, i cant help but see someone who just wants to be President to be President.

I've brought this up before & I don't know why nobody talks about this, but when Romney was in his early twenties at Stanford he would impersonate a cop & pull over people for fun. That seems to me like someone who's fascinated with power & status.

Said Madden in a recent interview, “He told us that he had gotten the uniform from his father,” George Romney, then the Governor of Michigan, whose security detail was staffed by uniformed troopers. “He told us that he was using it to pull over drivers on the road. He also had a red flashing light that he would attach to the top of his white Rambler.”

In Madden’s recollection, confirmed by his wife Susan, who also attended Stanford during those years, “we thought it was all pretty weird. We all thought, ‘Wow, that’s pretty creepy.’ And after that, we didn’t have much interaction with him,” although both Madden and Romney were prep school boys living in the same dorm, called Rinconada.

[TheWalrus]

Legitimate points. I can't speak for anyone else but I'm sure those people exist. I'm 21 so I won't discount my age as a limiting factor in regards to perspective. In five years I'm sure I'll have evolved certain opinions from where they are now, & five years from then I'll sure it'll be the same case. I think the worst is when people become indoctrinated into a certain ideology they can't ever seem to see outside of. I don't understand the argument though that because X amount of people don't know what due process is, or can't point to a country on a map means, we should keep bombing them or locking them in cages without trail.

Neither do I. But that wasn't the point I was making.

To me it's not so much any one party, it's about the candidates. I just can't vote for a guy that signs off on the NDAA, albeit "regrettably" or whichever synonym he used. I had such high hopes for Obama, the word decriminalization came out of his mouth once in regards to pot, & now he laughs it off when he's asked about it like he's implying, "let's talk about something serious". I've been really surprised at certain directions he's taken as the president that I wouldn't have thought he would going in. Whether that be the NDAA, or the Bush Tax Cuts, infringing upon state-law in regards to cannabis. Idk, seems like a different guy going in than he is now. Makes me think he either said certain things to get elected, or he was a young idealistic senator who when elected, realized he was more of a figure-head than an actual difference maker.

This is the closer of the two, imo. But my read on it was that Obama really felt he was going to ride into Washington with such momentum that he was actually going to be able to break the deadlock by the force of his popularity. "Sure, Washington is broken. But this wave I have behind me is the cure." That's how I think he felt.

Turns out that wasn't right, much to his dismay. By the time the health care debate was over I think he realized he had to switch gears to a more pragmatic approach, which has always been at the center of his own policy thinking anyway. And that involves not only compromises (too much, in my view), but the standard Washington practice of trading votes and favors. In other words, you believe both Law A and Law B should be passed, but if Law A is a higher priority and some Senator wants you to drop your support for Law B in exchange for his vote on Law A that's what you have to do. Otherwise you're not getting A or B.

Presidential politics is not as much about what you're in favor or not, it's about what your top four or five priorities are. That's about as many issues as you can marshal the resources to push forward consistently. Everything else is negotiable.

[Spesh]

I'd prefer an Obama victory over a Romney one. No question. I won't vote for him, & maybe using my vote on a Gary Johnson is 'throwing it away', but I just can't bring myself to vote for either of the two of them.

I've brought this up before & I don't know why nobody talks about this, but when Romney was in his early twenties at Stanford he would impersonate a cop & pull over people for fun. That seems to me like someone who's fascinated with power & status.

Fair enough. Wasnt trying to secure a vote for him, just interested to see if you thought there was a difference between the two, which is a question that comes up often on this forum.

And yeah, i recall that. I dont know if its more sad or alarming. I dont have a problem with people being ambitious, but im certainly not going to support someone who seems interested in being on top just to be on top(or worse, who wants to be on top to eat away at the bottom). I dislike using the categorization that the Obama campaign has used for Romneys economic belief, locust capitalism, but i dont id be far off if i were to suggest Romney has a "locust ambition".

[phins_4_ever]

Heres my question, which you can choose to answer or not, but do you consider him equally as "salesman" as Romney?

My own personal feeling is he was idealistic and naive, but he did intend to do much of what he promised. I can accept politicians being limited to the political reality we live in. With that reality in mind, i feel that there is a difference between Romney and Obama. Obama did butcher or throw away many of his promises, but did so reluctantly. With Romney, i cant help but see someone who just wants to be President to be President. The willingness to take a completely opposing point of view at any given moment is concerning.

In most everything else i judge by results, so perhaps im being hypocritical in my lenience of Obama and criticism of Romney. As well, i acknowledge those who get thrown in prison without due process wont really care if the government did so with reluctance. But i see a difference in the way the two candidates have handled their positions. If you, or others, dont see a difference is it simply because of the lack of results?

I think this sums up Obama's first 4 years. And that's why I always say that a 3rd candidate or a Ron Paul if ever elected won't do anything unless they run with their candidates in every State in order to get a majority in Congress.

You can have the most idealistic frame set and you can promise whatever you want to but once you get to Washington DC you are pulled and pushed into Washington DC. Just think what Obama could have done if not sold out by a couple of Democratic Senators or House Reps and if the Republicans actually would have worried about the country. The quote by Mitch McConnell was the Republican agenda. They didn't care about this country. The were trying to make Obama a one term President. That any Republican who thinks of themselves as an American (politician or voter) did not go ballistic by such a statement is beyond me. If a Democrat or any non-Republican would have said that they would have fried that person alive.

[Dolphins9954]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[Dogbone34]

all opposition parties work to deny a 2nd term

thinking McConnell is unique is being selectively naive

[phins_4_ever]

all opposition parties work to deny a 2nd term

thinking McConnell is unique is being selectively naive

No party has ever claimed that their priority is to make a sitting President a one term President - until now.
And no party has ever worked against a President. You may have an argument about ideology but not actually working against a President purposely - the country be damned - just to get him out of office.

[Dolphins9954]

To view links or images in this forum your post count must be 10 or greater. You currently have 0 posts.

[phinfan3411]

No party has ever claimed that their priority is to make a sitting President a one term President - until now.
And no party has ever worked against a President. You may have an argument about ideology but not actually working against a President purposely - the country be damned - just to get him out of office.

I firmly believe both parties do this, whether or not they announce it is another issue that is completely irrelevant. It's probably why almost all of my posts are anti-partisan in direction.

You...you though want me to believe the democratic party is a lonely beacon of hope...please.